Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Oct 2003 08:22:59 +0100 | From | John Bradford <> | Subject | Re: Blockbusting news, results are in |
| |
> What is apparently missing is better handling of the > uncorrectable errors. Specifically the ability to pass the > errors and warnings up to the OS for evaluation and for the > OS to be able to request a block remap or to undo a block > remap.
Why this suggestion keeping coming up, I have no idea. If you take the idea to it's extreme, it's basically saying that we should off-load all processing on to the host. Although there has been a move towards dumb peripherals in recent years, (E.G. software modems), I have seen almost no even vaguely convincing arguments other than cost as to why they are superior, (lower latency has been mentioned with regard to software modems - I fail to see the benefit, although I suppose it might exist for games players). Apart from some data recovery applications, I don't see how it is possible to do anything really useful simply by adding the ability to pass some warnings and errors up to the OS, without giving the OS access to all of the data that the drive firmware has access to.
Obviously drives with completely open and free firmware would be great, but that is not likely to happen in the near future, so for the time being, if you don't like the way drives handle defect management, complain to the manufactuers. I am satisfied with the way Maxtor disks handle defect management, both Eric's explainations and my own observations.
John. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |